Messages

1681

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 09, 2014, 11:20:29 AM »

Such a confusing subject; I found THIS thread over at TC, in which a different John ('Vintage 68') stated that CE long blocks were available under Warranty:

CE units were supplied in three (3) levels;
1.) "Assembly" = what we would normally term a 'Long-Block'. (less; I & E manifolds, flywheels/flexplate, distributor, carb., oil filter assemblies, fuel pump, pulleys or fan, starter, bracket assemblies & etc...) - needed District approval to order. These 'assemblies' were normally available only for standard performance claim work - Special HP engines under warranty required Zone approval and were usually* serviced with only 'partial' and 'fitted' parts.
2.) "Partial" = what we would call a 'Short-Block'. (included; block, crank, rods, pistons, cam & timing assembly) - needed Zone approval.
3.) "Fitted" = a block casting with fitted pistons, rings and a matched bearing set. needed Zone approval.

He also wrote in the same reply that:

Warranty Service parts were ordered AFTER the need arrose - not 'Stocked' or Warehoused beforehand.
Dealers entered warranty service parts requests for CE or CT needs through the Zone Representative for their area and they were shipped direct from supply plant to the dealer.

1682

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 09, 2014, 09:31:21 AM »

John's info that they were not held in inventory is a surprise to me.

Yes, that's what I had thought based on this reply:
"When the liability for replacement of 5/50 warranty engines expired in 1975, I'm sure there were a lot of "CE" short blocks in inventory, and those went into the parts system as out-of-warranty and over-the-counter short blocks."
From http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=1635.0;all
Maybe things had changed by 1975 and GM maintained a stock of them?

1683

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 09, 2014, 07:15:12 AM »

Thanks for the further comments. I'm intrigued by this subject, as there must've been literally tens of thousands of CE blocks issued annually, yet not much is understood about them.
For example, I recently spoke with the owner of a 3959512 Flint block with casting date K 29 8 with this pad stamp CE946309 (not keen on the funky paint color though....... must've been a 70's customisation thing). So it was cast in 1968 for the 1969 model year. But being the ~26,309th Flint service block stamped, if it was machined and stamped soon after casting (on 29th November 1968) then that'd mean a bunch of Chevy engines needed to be replaced relatively early in the new model year, even considering all the Chevy models. Especially as the Service Bulletin detailing the CE format to be used was dated September 19, 1968. 26,000+ blocks replaced under warranty in a little over 2 months seems a lot, and doesn't include Tonawanda figures.

1684

Originality / Re: Original front spoiler for a 69

« on: December 07, 2014, 07:37:15 PM »

Thanks for the pictures Steve!

1685

Originality / Re: Original front spoiler for a 69

« on: December 07, 2014, 10:08:34 AM »

A guy on e-bay was selling one awhile ago and it had numbers "ink stamped" in yellow.  Number was : GM# 3938689   That's what I have here...hope it helps you.    Don

That's the correct number according to the 69 AIM, UPC D80 sheet A1. You didn't happen to save the ebay photo(s) did you? Would be interested to see the ink stamp.

1686

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 07, 2014, 01:13:56 AM »

I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.

Found that thread - http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=213236
It was actually Kurt who wrote the reply (#4) that I remembered:
"Any 69-74 SB with CE on the pad could have gone into the car. It could be dated before the car.... "
So surely that means that at least some blocks were held in inventory before machining and stamping?

1687

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 07, 2014, 12:29:17 AM »

Thanks guys.
Bryon, I'm curious because in several discussions on CE blocks, well-respected members and contributors here and elsewhere have stated that the next best thing to a car's original block is a CE block with documentation, then descending in order from a NOM but correct casting, suffix and date coded block, all the way down to a crate engine as the least preferred.
Therefore I am curious as to what original warranty replacement documentation was provided to the owner by the dealer, and if that documentation did not include the CE stamp number from the pad, how would one go about proving that a car still has the block that GM replaced under warranty?

I'm sure I recall seeing a post (either here or at TC) that suggested it was possible to have a block dated earlier than the car it was fitted to, hence my question on whether blocks were set aside for service replacements, or machined, fitted with rotating assembly (if required) and stamped on demand.

1688

Originality / Re: Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 06, 2014, 08:15:17 PM »

Thanks John!
So there is no way a CE block could be cast before the build date of the car it was fitted to?
Just to clarify, in point 2 above, I didn't mean would the dealer stamp the pad, but would the dealer record the pad stamp number by writing it on the warranty paperwork?
I understand that there was little margin (if any) for the dealer here, in fact recently followed a thread (link HERE) questioning if the service blocks were even painted by the dealer. Several guys who were involved in the day said not unless the parts dept supplied the paint, but some mechanics would give them a quick paint job if there was some paint left over in the clean-up area.

1689

General Discussion / Re: A Very Rusty Proposition

« on: December 06, 2014, 04:14:42 AM »

All comments are apreciated

Is this your car, or are you considering taking it on?

1690

Restoration / Re: "Cement" used at rear shock mounts??

« on: December 06, 2014, 04:09:12 AM »

UPC 0 lists out all the sealants and cements used, and sheet D6 calls 60a up as part 3765159, cement plastic seam, seal shock absorber opening in u/body.
Can't say what it was actually made of, but on my car it is somewhat like the sealant that was around the rear bumper brackets. 4.5 inches would probably be the length of sealant bead (of a given width) required to do both bracket locations.

1691

Originality / Service Engines (CE coded)

« on: December 05, 2014, 10:09:49 AM »

I have been researching CE blocks (mainly small blocks) for some time now, and have a couple of questions that hopefully Kurt and/or the other CRG researchers can help with:
1. Does CRG have any examples of warranty documentation for a service replacement engine being installed in a 67-69 Camaro, and if so, are there any known examples of the block casting date preceding the build date of the car? (and if so, curious as to how much earlier?)
2. Did the dealer always issue paperwork for the replacement engine recording the new pad stamp number?
3. What was the process for supply and demand of service engines? i.e. were CE blocks produced by the engine assembly plants on demand from the dealership (assuming the zone rep authorised it), or were they machined, assembled (long, short or bare) and stamped 'CE' alongside regular production engines and set aside until required?

From the serial numbers allocated to Flint and Tonawanda for service engines, seems that would've been an excessive number of blocks/fitted engines etc to store and maintain somewhere, but then it would've taken time for the dealer to order the replacement, for the engine plant to machine, assemble and ship the part across the country, then for the dealer to fit it, all while the loyal customer was without their car.....

1692

Decoding/Numbers / Re: Baldwin Motion VIN numbers? Or others, Yenko etc?

« on: December 03, 2014, 08:20:13 PM »

Doesn't include BM cars, but if you go to http://www.yenko.net and scroll down to bottom left hand side, there's a link to all the known Yenko/COPO VINs. You can also access the supercar registry via http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/forums/58/1/supercar-registry
Not sure if there is any BM registry somewhere, seem to recall reading that Joel Rosen offers a verification service to determine if a car is one of theirs, probably because they did not maintain full records of all the cars they upgraded.

1693

Site Comments/Discussion / CRG Decoder Program

« on: December 02, 2014, 10:02:37 AM »

Question for the CRG core members:
Is the email address listed on the public decoder program (the request to email the decoded txt file to 'CamaroDan@juno.com') still active?

1694

Restoration / Re: VE3 bumper

« on: December 02, 2014, 07:19:17 AM »

The only car that I've seen with all the original VE3 jack equipment still present had the load rest hook attached to the jack mast, as per the standard bumper jack mounting. A sample size of one is no basis for an assumption, but I can't imagine where the load rest hook could be securely mounted on it's own..... Pity, because originals being so hard to find, it's a shame they're hidden under the spare!
IIRC, the standard jack mast mounting is shown in UPC10 of the 69 AIM.

1695

General Discussion / Re: New guy new project 69 Camaro

« on: November 30, 2014, 07:58:00 AM »

Triple blue, Glacier blue with blue vinyl top and dark blue deluxe interior - very nice!